Tag Archives: education

Ugh, it’s a Krug

A few days ago Jessica Krug, a tenured professor at George Washington University, posted a bizarre confession. I’ve excerpted the key bits. The Truth, and the Anti-Black Violence of My Lies (archive.is):

To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness. I have not only claimed these identities as my own when I had absolutely no right to do so — when doing so is the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures — but I have formed intimate relationships with loving, compassionate people who have trusted and cared for me when I have deserved neither trust nor caring. People have fought together with me and have fought for me, and my continued appropriation of a Black Caribbean identity is not only, in the starkest terms, wrong — unethical, immoral, anti-Black, colonial — but it means that every step I’ve taken has gaslighted those whom I love.

. . .

Mental health issues likely explain why I assumed a false identity initially, as a youth, and why I continued and developed it for so long; the mental health professionals from whom I have been so belatedly seeking help assure me that this is a common response to some of the severe trauma that marked my early childhood and teen years.

. . .

That I claimed belonging with living people and ancestors to whom and for whom my being is always a threat at best and a death sentence at worst.
I am not a culture vulture. I am a culture leech.

. . .

I should absolutely be cancelled. No. I don’t write in passive voice, ever, because I believe we must name power. So. You should absolutely cancel me, and I absolutely cancel myself.

What does that mean?

I don’t know.

. . .

I have built my life on a violent anti-Black lie, and I have lied in every breath I have taken.

There are no words in any language to express the depth of my remorse, but then again: there shouldn’t be. Words are never the point.

. . .

I don’t know how to fix this. I am attempting to lay out a timeline of my deceit to better understand all whom I have violated and how, and to begin to imagine how to restore, to address, to redress… But I can’t fix this.

. . .

To everyone who trusted me, who fought for me, who vouched for me, who loved me, who is feeling shock and betrayal and rage and bone marrow deep hurt and confusion, violation in this world and beyond: I beg you, please, do not question your own judgment or doubt yourself. You were not naive. I was audaciously deceptive. I have a very clear, loud conscience, but I have acted as if I had none. I gaslit you. I begged for your compassion and love for my isolation and loneliness — real and raw feelings, but borne of the avalanche of deceit.

. . .

I have no identity outside of this. I have never developed one. I have to figure out how to be a person that I don’t believe should exist, and how, as that person, to even begin to heal any of the harm that I’ve caused.

***

No white person, no non-Black person, has the right to claim proximity to or belonging in a Black community by virtue of abuse, trauma, non-acceptance, and non-belonging in a white community. The abuse within and alienation from my birth family and society are no one’s burden but my own, and mine alone to address. Black people and Black communities have no obligation to harbor the refuse of non-Black societies. I have done this. I know it is wrong and I have done this anyway.

Krug admits she’s a liar and that her entire career as a professional black was an elaborate identity fraud, which makes it difficult to take anything she has ever said or ever will say at face value.

She says she perpetrated her fraud while being fully conscious that it was harmful to others. She claims to feel remorse, but provides no good reason for anyone to believe it. She doesn’t say why she decided to make her announcement, and preemptively shrugs off what she intends to come of it. It seems she was exposed and confronted and wanted to “get ahead of the story”.

She claims she has no identity beyond pretending to be someone she isn’t. This can be understood to include her “lived experience as a white jewish child” rather than contradicting it. It might be amusing to hear her expound on this oxymoronic “White jew” lie, but anyone paying attention should already understand.

The plainest way to put it is that Krug is a jew who, for whatever reason, decided to pretend not to be. Despite her supposed “mental health issues” she exhibited a keen understanding of racial identity and social psychology, and an irrepressible will to shape the thinking of others. She built a successful career for herself as an anti-White professional intellectual in academia. In all these ways her behavior has been typically jewy.

Krug did in secret what jews organized and acting as jews are doing openly. As one professional jew put it frankly to tribemates, There Is a Jessica Krug in Every Jew. The problem from that jew’s point of view is that his tribe isn’t jewing hard or openly enough. He gets closer than usual to the truth when he writes, “We’d like to think that we can be like everyone else, but we’re not. … The world feels that we are causing them to hate each other, and this is why they hate us”.

Krug’s biggest lie is The Lie, the lie the parasite tells its host, the lie standing behind all the other lies. “The host is the oppressor, the parasite is their victim”, hisses the parasite. The terrible reality is that the host is relatively clueless, whereas the parasite is hyper-aware of who they are and what they’re doing. Krug fittingly describes herself as a leech. Caught lying she simply continues lying, acting as if her main victim has been the blacks she befriended, allied herself with, and continues to pander to, rather than the Whites she vilifies and continues to incite attacks against. There is no sign that she ever decried jews or their jewing, or that she ever will.

To get a sense of the depth and range of Krug’s chameleon-like abilities compare and constrast this performance with this one.

Krug says she “gaslighted those whom I love”. Gaslighting is a trendy term, mostly misapplied. Krug however is a specialist, and she uses the term correctly. It specifically has to do with relationships based on lies, the psychological mechanics of fraud, the abuse of trust and its impact. The cure for gaslighting is for the abused to recognize that the abuser is not the friend, lover, or ally they present themselves as, but an enemy.

Speaking of gaslighting, most reporting and commentary in the jewsmedia aimed at the goyim has gone along with Krug’s charade, deploring the imaginary harm done to blacks, attributing her behavior to her supposed Whiteness, and limiting any mention of her jewness to an uncritical echoing of her “White jew” lie.

This has been true even for op-eds signed by the jewsmedia’s house-broken blacks. Jessica Krug offers a twisted example of White privilege and Jessica Krug Is Just Another Rachel Dolezal are two versions of the same stupid narrative. The WaPo version is a bit more polished, boiling down and putting the main point in its title. The bitchmedia version spells out the White-washing, baldly describing Krug’s characteristically jewy jewing while misidentifying it as the epitome of Whiteness:

Krug, who adopted the moniker Jess La Bombera, wasn’t only satisfied with becoming a tenured professor, publishing a book through a major academic trade press, and being regarded as an expert in African American studies. She also had to become a gatekeeper of Blackness—a moral pillar who determined who was working on behalf of Black people and who needed to be held accountable for not doing enough. “She consistently trashed women of color and questioned their scholarship,” political anthropologist Yarimar Bonilla, who teaches at Hunter College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, tweeted. “She even described my colleague Marisa Fuentes as a ‘slave catcher’ in the introduction to her book. Kind of amazing how white supremacy means she even thought she was better at being a person of color than we were.”

Everything about Krug’s behavior—from her defensiveness and the calculated theft of opportunities from actual Black scholars to her inherent feeling of superiority—screams of whiteness. Her near immediate pivoting to victimhood—everything is in my control, but nothing is—also echoes the whiteness that has allowed white people to colonize lands and then claim to be oppressed within the very nations they pillaged.

. . .

Colorism—a system that privileges lighter-skinned people and other features that signify a proximity to whiteness at the expense of darker-skinned people—becomes a useful weapon for white women who choose to cosplay as Black. Gatekeepers trust light-skinned people to be stewards of their own stories and of Blackness at-large, leaving little room for those darker than them to question their right to Blackness. These conversations devolve quickly from rightful questioning to being perceived as untrusting and envious. White women who’ve studied Blackness enough to emulate it know this and manipulate it—using colorism, though its impact on darker-skinned people, to shield themselves from legitimate inquiry.

. . .

Pretty soon, Kruger will be on the morning show circuit, which she will leverage into a book deal and a documentary—raking in money from the deception itself. It sounds like the best version of being “canceled,” as she declared herself in her Medium post. As Krug rebrands herself—this time as a white woman victimized by a system that racializes people—what becomes of the people she’s harmed? Are they suddenly collateral damage in her quest to declare her right to be Black until it no longer suits her? There are people whose trust she gained, who defended her, and who bought into her lie. How can Krug atone in any meaningful way without recentering herself? She can’t, and she also won’t simply go away because the audacity of whiteness won’t allow her ego to do that either. The burden can only be carried insofar as it benefits her, and when it became too heavy, finally weighing on her moral center or career goals, it became easy to shed the very Blackness she once cloaked herself in as a form of repelling armor. That, to be clear, is the whitest part of it all.

The WaPo op-ed concludes with this whopper:

In 2020 in this country, Whiteness still carries a lot of privilege — including, perhaps, the privilege to get away with pretending to be Black.

That’s right. Whites get all the blame for jews jewing jewily. It’s quite a privilege. And the same switcheroo is used to jewsplain away jewy networking at the highest levels of power, from Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump. We can expect to see similarly cohencidental networking if and when we ever find out who was responsible for backing and advancing Krug.

The most irksome thing about these sneaky jew-serving narratives conflating jews with Whites is how they are complemented by the brazenly jew-serving narratives portraying jews as utterly distinct and different from Whites, as the innocent victims of and racial enemies of Whites.

The Krug affair is one of those seemingly silly stories most White people will briefly snigger at and then quickly forget. Unfortunately, it is also emblematic of the current jewed anti-White regime. Would that the problem were just one wacky jewess. It isn’t. She is just the tip of the latest, trending phase of jewing, the “wokeness” inspiring everyone to lash out at White people.

It’s not that pundits are blind to all this jewing, can’t understand it, or are unable to describe it. Many present themselves as authorities on what’s going on, then very deliberately omit the jew part. Last week, for example, the jew Glenn Greenwald was very eager to echo and promote a very serious White-washing of “wokeness”, a “great essay” describing “how white elites are exploiting and weaponizing their own self-serving definitions of ‘racism'”.

It’s yet another example of the “White jew” lie.

The author, Columbia sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, is visibly non-White and describes himself as “a core member of Heterodox Academy”, an alt-jew cabal promoting “classical liberalism” to the goyim. The essay’s disingenuous title is Who gets to define what’s ‘racist?’

One key insight of the “discursive turn” in social research is how concepts are defined, and by whom, reveals a lot about power relations within a society or culture. These definitions are not just reflections of social dynamics, but can have important socio-political consequences downstream: they can help legitimize or delegitimize individuals, groups and their actions; they can render some things more easily comprehensible and others less so; they can push certain things outside the realm of polite discussion, and introduce new elements into the language game.

The term “racist” is no exception.

In the past, racism primarily denoted overt discrimination, bigotry, or racial animus. Incidents of this nature are far less common and far less accepted than they were in previous decades. Indeed, in contemporary U.S. society, one of the very worst charges that can be leveled against someone – especially a white person – is to accuse them of being racist.

On balance, both of these developments are great.

. . .

Looking at GSS and ANES data, highly-educated whites tend to be more ‘woke’ on racial issuesthan the average black or Hispanic; they tend to perceive much more racism against minorities than most minorities, themselves, report experiencing; they express greater support for diversity than most blacks or Hispanics; they report more favorable attitudes towards people of racial/ ethnic ‘outgroups’ over their ‘ingroup’ – and are the only ethnic or racial group to exhibit such tendencies.

How can this phenomenon be explained?

One approach might be to argue that relatively well-off and highly-educated liberal whites — by virtue of their college education and higher rates of consumption of ‘woke’ content in the media, online, etc. — simply understand the reality and dynamics of racism better than the average black or Hispanic. I would strongly advise against anyone taking a stand on that hill.

What is more plausible is that many whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are.

White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites. Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites).

Gharbi is describing how jews define “racism” and use it to attack Whites. That would be more obvious if he noted how the same people who define “racism” also define “anti-semitism”, and how they use that to cancel even non-White goyim. Do “highly-educated liberal whites” really they think and behave as a group? What role do jews play? How much of this “highly-educated” and “liberal” business is just a disguise for jews and their jewing? How many hostile anti-White Krugs are out there posing as White? An honest sociologist might ask questions like this, but as Cuddihy noted, sociology is a sect of jewing.

One Big Lie of the thoroughly jewed anti-White regime is that race is entirely a social construct. Another is that it’s really complicated, which is why an army of professional leeches must constantly jewsplain how non-White is good and White is bad. But then that simple truth falls out of every one of these transracial scandals. What makes these scandals scandalous is the fact that race is a heritable, genetic, biological trait. And despite the jew lies, even the most racially mixed and least intelligent hominins instinctively grasp that truth.

Intersectional Jewing

jew_tears_intensify

Concerning the jew victim narrative, AKA the jew version of history, which provides the much longer-term foundation for the past century’s jew-defined/jew-driven anti-White “anti-racism” and post-WWII identity politics. The latest twist in the jew narrative concerns intersectionality, which encompasses all the bitter squabbling over rank in the anti-White victim hierarchy. The Occupy Wall Street movement called this hierarchy the progressive stack.

Broadly put, intersectional jewing is what happens when one form of jewing comes into conflict with another. The conflict I focus on here arises mainly out of the clash between two jew narratives: the lie that jews are “white”, and the lie that Whites are evil. There is also a clash between the jew “anti-racism” fraud and the ongoing developments coming out of White science, mostly having to do with genetics and race.

In this podcast I reexamine a number of older topics and connect them with more recent examples.

The intersectional jewing connection first clicked for me while writing about Bret Weinstein at Evergreen. The Tuvel Affair and Trans-Reality are all about the jewing and alt-jewing around sexual degeneracy and transracialism/crypsis.

An early example was discussed in Liberalism as a Suicide Pact, which has to do with the common kikeservative assertion that “muh liberalism/constitution is not a suicide pact” (for the jews) originating from Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello.

The jewsmedia white-washing of the kikeservative Trump administration is discussed in A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust and Intrigue in Trump’s Palace.

Non-White/anti-White jew double-talk is covered in Jews Debate Whiteness and Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White.

Ezra Levant jewsplains the jewing of “hate speech” jewing in Canada.

Lawrence Auster’s The First Law of Jewish Influence.

Alt-jew/JRx: On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction.

Jonathan Haidt at Duke: Two incompatible sacred values in American universities. A description of Haidt’s this-jewing-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-jews shtick:

“When I went to Yale, in 1981, it said above the main gate ‘Lux et Veritas’: Light and Truth. We are here to find truth,” Haidt says as he paces the stage at the Students for Liberty conference in Washington. “This is our heritage all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates.” But the pursuit of truth is being supplanted by a new mission, he warns, the pursuit of social justice. He paraphrases Marx: “The point is not to understand the world; the point is to change it.”

It’s human nature to make things sacred — people, places, books, ideas, Haidt says. “So what’s sacred at a university?” he asks. “Victims are sacred,” he answers. And a victimhood culture offers only two ways to get prestige: Be a victim, or, if you can’t manage that, stand up for victims. How? “By punishing the hell out of anyone who in any way, shape, or form, even inadvertently, marginalizes a member of a victim class.”

He clicks to reveal a slide titled “The Six Sacred Groups.” “The Big 3” are Blacks, Women, LGBT. “The Other 3” are Latinos, Native Americans, Disability. The list of sacred victims, he says, is growing. Among the newly sacrosanct are Muslims, transgender, and Black Lives Matter. “I’m in no way saying these are not victims,” Haidt says. “I’m not dismissing claims of systemic racism. I’m just pointing out that the quasi-religious conflicts we have on campus nowadays tend to revolve around these groups.”

Hysterical Jamie Kirchick’s Dykes vs. Kikes. The official response from the dykes:

Zionism is an inherently white-supremacist ideology. It is based on the premise that Jewish people have a God-given entitlement to the lands of historic Palestine and the surrounding areas. This ideology has been used to justify dozens of laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel, segregated road systems in the West Bank, and forced removal of Palestinian families from their homes in order to make way for Jewish-only housing, among other violent and discriminatory practices. We recognize that Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, but instead represents an ideology that uses legacies of Jewish struggle to justify violence.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-“white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”